To rephrase President Obama's State of the Union theme: "This is our generation's apparatchik moment."
Yes, he said "Sputnik" instead, but his actual agenda is about the apparatchik -- government by party leaders, bureaucrats and the well-connected.
His agenda is symbolized by his push for "green jobs" as the path to a better future.
Simply put, the green jobs agenda spends billions of taxpayer dollars to destroy existing jobs and replace them with jobs in politically-favored businesses, raising the costs of energy along the way.
The politically-connected win. Existing job-holders and companies lose. Home electric bills go up. Power also costs more for companies, making it more expensive to go into business or to stay in business.
It's cronyism that is building a political power structure based on false claims about clean green jobs.
It's cannibalism because creating the green jobs requires killing off existing jobs.
As Bloomberg News reported, "Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain's experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide."
One Heritage Foundation study showed that proposed mandates for using "renewable energy" to generate electricity would cost 1-million jobs. Had last year's cap-and-trade bill been passed, we might have lost almost 2-million jobs. That compares to claims by the renewal energy industry that 274,000 jobs would be created by their products. We would lose 3 to 7 jobs or more for every one that we gain.
This is Obamamath. Obama wants us to pay for the privilege of destroying jobs. His State of the Union called for "incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."
Guess what? If it requires incentives, it isn't profitable!
"When the President and Congress talk about green jobs, they are talking about ones created via federal tax breaks, subsidies, or outright mandates," noted The Heritage Foundation's Ben Liebermann.
The green jobs agenda is all about making a large group dependent on the politicians who provide them money and who in exchange receive campaign donations and other political support. It is the ultimate in Tammany Hall-style political bossism -- the political earmark that dwarfs all others. The green jobs agenda is a political spoils and cronyism system operating in the open, justifying itself through political correctness and overblown claims that it is dictated by global warming.
POLITICO reported that the alternative energy sector only spent $2.4-million on lobbying in 1998, but that grew to $30-million a year by 2009. The story noted, "The speed of expansion is eye-popping," and added, "Wind, solar, ethanol up and other alternative energy groups are also stepping up their political contributions to candidates -- almost all of them Democrats. Yes, the fossil fuel lobby spends about five times more than the alternative energy lobby, but fossil fuel produces over 20 times as much power -- about 70% of our national electricity compared to about 3%.
How about claims that existing federal policies already advantage fossil fuels? A report from the federal Department of Energy shows that each megawatt of power produced by wind or solar power receives subsidies almost 100 times higher than for oil and natural gas, and about 50 times higher than for coal.
Even The New York Times reported that wind-generated power costs 50% more than power generated from fossil fuel, and power from solar energy costs 2-3 times more than wind power.
Perhaps someday those who profit from subsidizing alternative energy will admit what they've done, just as Al Gore now admits his push for billions in ethanol subsidies was a mistake based on political gain--not even counting his monetary gain since leaving office. As The Wall Street Journal said, "ethanol has become a purely political machine: It serves no purpose other than re-electing incumbents and transferring wealth to farm states and ethanol producers."
But don't some business interests support the green agenda? Sadly, yes. They tend to be those who profit from these subsidies. Writing in Forbes, Jerry Bowyer noted, "What is the difference between crony capitalism and socialism? Not much."
We did not win the space race by putting extra costs and burdens on ourselves to benefit a team of politicians and businesses that scratch each others' backs. Obama's call to action isn't based on Sputnik; it's based on apparatchik. We don't need that cronyism. Or to cannibalize existing jobs so cronies can build more power for themselves.
Follow Ernest Istook on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Ernest_Istook
During the "Bush Boom", they shipped all the tech jobs over to India, just like they shipped all of America's electronics manufacturing over to Taiwan during Reagan and GHWB, and all of our regular manufacturing pretty much anywhere but the US.
Conservative ideology- bad for America, and bad for our children's future.
What do you mean overblown claims about global warming? That it won't happen in the next quarter?
Or the truth of the scientific honesty by the researchers at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit?
Cronyism is a huge part of the "Green Jobs" movement. That doesn't mean we should abandon pursuing "Green Jobs" it means that we should allow them to come to market naturally and not just dump billions of dollars into it when it isn't proven economically and who may be doing more harm than good to the taxpayers who are funding it.
If you could be bothered to factor that into your argument you would realise that you don't have any other choice if you want to maintain any kind of realistic energy infrastrucure.
Stealing the oil from other countries will only be viable until the oil runs out. As it is being consumed at an ever faster rate there is less of it available to steal everyday. The remaining amount left in the ground is energy negative to extract meaning it costs more in energy to extract it, refine it, transport it than it provides so it is essentially a complete waste of energy to even attempt to extract it.
If you also take into account the inaccurate reporting by the market (vested interests abound) on the actual amounts of known reserves in the ground in order to inflate stock offerings and provide investment "incentive" then you will see that their is less than 10 years worth of oil left to fulfill the increasing rate of consumption worldwide over the coming decade.
Given that most of the oil is not in the US and the liklihood of regime change in the countries that are currently supplying US consumption requirements you should be arguing whole heartedly for the US to find new ways to create energy even if the cost is 10 times that of fossil fuels.
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Clean_Economy_Report_Web.pdf
Research by The Pew Charitable Trusts shows that despite a lack of sustained policy attention and investment, the emerging clean energy economy has grown considerably—extending to all 50 states, engaging a wide variety of workers and generating new industries. Between 1998 and 2007, its jobs grew at a faster rate than overall jobs. Like all other sectors, the clean energy economy has been hit by the recession, but investments in clean technology have fared far better in the past year than venture capital overall. Looking forward, the clean energy economy has tremendous potential for growth, as investments continue to flow from both the government and private sector and federal
and state policy makers increasingly push for reforms that will both spur economic renewal and sustain the environment. By 2007, more than 68,200 businesses across all 50 states and the District of Columbia accounted for about 770,000 jobs that achieve the double bottom line of economic growth and environmental sustainability.
So does that stand for the oil industry as well?
No matter what goes wrong, we know where all blame belongs.
Blame it on global warming.
If you lose your job, blame global warming. If your boyfriend bugs out, blame global warming. If your kids set the house on fire, blame global warming. If the cashier gives you the wrong change, blame global warming.
It's now the all-purpose villain for every catastrophe, great and small. No connection is too small to dream up.
How can anyone keep track of it all? There's a handy website listing more than 800 such public claims, "A Complete List of Things Caused by Global Warming." http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm Everything from acne to weeds to traffic jams is supposedly being induced by this all-purpose culprit.
It’s nothing new for Al Gore to claim that global warming (or should we call it global cremation?) is causing cold weather instead of hot. He already admitted that he was wrong to tout ethanol, but did it for political purposes. His latest comments are just as consistent.